Pelosi: Murtha Was Right

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today became the most high-profile Democrat to throw her support behind Rep. John Murtha's (D-Pa.) call for immediate redeployment of the American military forces in Iraq.

At a press conference in Washington, Pelosi said she would "follow the lead of John Murtha." She said President Bush "fails to understand that a new course is needed in Iraq."

Pelosi's move came just hours after President Bush used a speech at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., to highlight positive developments in Iraq and to unveil a national strategy for the occupation. The Minority Leader's high-profile move to join Murtha puts her at odds with some of the party's leading lights, including New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said a hasty withdrawal would "cause more problems for us in America," and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who said in a recent speech he shared Murtha's "frustration" but had not reached the same conclusions. (Biden released a statement late this afternoon calling Bush's Naval Academy speech a "positive step.")

Republicans immediately went on the attack against Pelosi. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) said Pelosi is guilty of a "flip-flop on troop withdrawal" that "further demonstrates the deep division and chronic indecision that exist within the Democrat Party on the war on terror." House Republicans pointed to Pelosi's vote against a GOP-authored resolution that would have authorized immediate withdrawal. That vote, however, was a GOP political ploy to call Murtha's bluff. Murtha himself did not vote for that resolution; only three Democratic representatives -- Cynthia McKinney (Ga.), Jose Serrano (N.Y.) and Robert Wexler (Fla.) -- voted in the affirmative.

Will Pelosi be left out to dry by other congressional leaders and members of the party's rank and file. Or will her endorsement of an immediate redeployment provide cover for lawmakers who want to come out publicly in support of Murtha but were too timid to do so before?

Merrill, do you believe the US cut and run from Vietnam? Are you saying we should have stayed there and fought longer?

The comparison of Saddam to Hitler is simply idiotic. Hitler had clear intentions to take over every country it could. Saddam posed no threat to the US (I challenge you to explain how he did), and the only other country he ever attacked was Kuwait, because it was slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's underground oil.

You also haven't answered how the US embarking on a policy of pre-emptive war doesn't leave us more vulnerable to attacks from Iran, Syria, or North Korea.

Nor have you explained how waging an elective war comports with your moral beliefs. I'm an atheist, but even I believe in "Thou shalt not kill".

Finally, just because I live in Canada does not mean I am Canadian. I am a US citizen. I was born in the US. I still vote in US elections--haven't missed a single one since I turned 18. I worked in the US Senate for 3 years. To call me anti-American is totally outrageous and demonstrates the disgusting depths to which you must resort to avoid an honest defense of your ridiculous positions.

I read Odom's account and did not find it completely credible, much as Bush's recent victory speech.

Pelosi I think is perfectly justified in saying what she believes and this provides a counterpoint to other folks in party like Hillary who have not developed a position for politically expedient purposes.

In the shades of gray category, Kerry continues to chug along:

Some Democrats continued yesterday to finesse their position. At a White House appearance after an event honoring civil rights leader Rosa Parks, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said: "If you just continue along the road we're going now without a more concrete transfer of responsibility -- a target schedule by which you begin to turn over provinces, by which you specifically begin to shift the responsibility -- I think a lot of people fear that it's going to be more of the same."

He added: "I'm not asking even for the specific timetable of withdrawal. I'm asking for a specific timetable of transfer of authority."

Odom has a valid point that the invasion itself was a mistake that rewarded our more formidable adversaries then made any logical sense. A demonstration of what Richard Cohen said is Bush's "wretched judgment."

Victory in Iraq (I don't think so), somewhat better outcome than precipitously leaving without any kind of rational plan for exit. I think this is where the real action is.

As for the "nobility" of the Bush administration's humanitarian vision (as one poster mentioned), the folks who ginned up the reasons for this war, and still has not come clean about what's happened or happening there. Don't make me laugh.

If you haven't read enough History books to know what happens when a Country cuts and runs in the face of agression, then you will never understand.

Just as Switzerland's "so-called" neutrality in WWII has since been debunked as untrue; colaboration between Switzerland and Hitler's Third Reich consisted of money laundering and providing war-time materials for the German war effort among other unfriendly activities. Switzerland in WWII is more like France and Russia in the Gulf War Oil for Food fiasco. Anyone who believes Kofi Annan and his son were innocent of embezzlement, accepting bribes and outright corruption needs to buy one of my new Beachfront Resort lots available now in the Mohave Desert.

Building consensus with Europe on their terms today is defeat. Working with our allies in Europe and elsewhere on common goals with leadership from the world's only superpower does give our world a bright future.

If you don't like the Mohave, please follow the Sandwich Repairman and go to Canada or France. You will fit in well there. In France I suggest the cities Lille, Rouen Orleans, Nice, Cannes, Strasbourg or Colmar. All of these cities have a very festive group of peace loving insurgents whom I'm sure would welcome you as comrades. Would the last anti-american please shut the border after you have left!

Nothing unusual posted here but the insidious relationship between the Democrats and the media is once again on display. For weeks, months, and even years from some we have heard about troop "withdrawal". Now, however, thanks to a DNC press release we are now talking about "redeployment". I guess all the focus groups that make up the DNC Policy Team didn't like "withdrawal" so "redeployment" it is and we can expect to hear this term from now on and here's the Post leading the way. Mr Orwell would would marvel.

Anybody who thinks that Pelosi is going to be hung out to dry on this issue is crazy. The president and VP have absolutely no credibility with 60 percent of America. Now is not the time to be afraid of Karl. Wary, yes, but not afraid. The president's policies have been disastrous in every area, and the House leadership will be pointing that out to the American people continuously over the next year. Now is the time to push the president aside. The administration's arrogance and incompetence are fully demonstrated. Three years into a war we get a "Strategy for Victory." This is an insult to America!
peace,
jim

Can we take "flip-flop" out of the Republican sound machine please and replace it was moron. I feel like screaming from the top of a building-analysis of complex issues is not flip-flopping it is mature and sound decision making. It is psychotic to come up with one idea and stick to it-a la Bush. It is characteristic of substance abuse addiction, a la Bush. He is unable, as is his constituency, to understand nuance and substance so they use sound bite thinking, labeling, name calling, and it ends up killing other peoples children with thier lack of a plan. You dont produce a plan after the failure of the lack of a plan. These deaths are on all of your republican heads-lets see you sacrifice your loved ones for ego and rhetoric next time. It wont be mine, pull out now, save lives, save face, and let go of your egos and what lies under the waistline. Jan Falk, LCSW

By the way. Does any Republican (including you Mr. Cilliza) want to explain to me why on the first page of Bush's absurd "Victory Strategy" it says this:

"""The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining."""

If Bush and Rumsfeld knew even one iota about the "broad" "short term," "medium term" and the so-called "longer term" "victory strategy" back in 2003, then how do you explain THIS:

* Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, 2003 Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, 2003 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, 2003 Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

Bush lied about WMD in Iraq and ability to use them in 45 minutes, and Iraq's ties to Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, when all other excuses failed. Now his administration,(family?), friends, and political donors and cronies, are making windfall profits of blood money, in oil and wartime contracts, off the backs of over 2100 dead American service men and women, more "mercenaries"(contractors), Iraqi's, "Coalition of the Willing", and the countries of the "Coalition of the Willing".
For all of us who aren't lemmings being blindly led by Bush and Company, Fox news, CNN, Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc., know that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda had absolutely no ties to Iraq. They were in Afghanistan. Why did Bush out source targetting and gutting Bin Laden out to the warlords that protect him? The 160,000 troops, in Iraq, as security for Bush and his cronies oil and wartime contracts, could be in Afghanistan or Pakistan combing for Bin Laden and also stomping out the terror cells in countries friendly to us and the increasing countries that are unfriendly as a result of our invasion. There should be an immediate independent investigation of the Bush admministration about the chain of events and "All Information that they were privey to from all investigative services in our government".
Bush and his administration along with whoever are involved with the lies and manipulation of lies of information from any of the secret services should be immediately be impeached for treason. The U.S. should than form a real "Coalition of Nations" to take over security of Iraq and train their "Armed Forces". I feel bad for our dead but since these liars got us into Iraq with lies I don't see why we have to stay there to "honorably die for them". I didn't serve this country for these goddamn "Silver Spoons" to wreck it with their stupidity and avarice. One who served but didn't serve in the "Texas Champagne Unit", and the other "Who got 5 deferments because he had better things to do", along with the other service dodging war strategy rejects. Impeach these carpetbagging scumbags!

Uh, db, there were 22 Democrats and 1 Republican in the Senate who voted against the war. I think most if not all of them spoke on the Senate floor against the war, many passionately. Are you watching C-SPAN and reading the Congressional Record, or just following what the corporate media report?

How is it selfish to argue that we shouldn't be spending over $200B to kill 200,000 innocent Iraqi civillians when their nation had no connection to al Qaeda and posed no threat to the US until we invaded?

Killing innocent people--who as another commenter noted usually have darker skins and different religions than ours--is not noble or moral. Remember "Thou shalt not kill"? Guess the righties like to pick and choose which commandments we're supposed to follow. I think supporting an ongoing war that has no point or accomplishments is not only the more selfish position, but the racist/xenophobic, destructive, and counterproductive one. The war is creating more terrorism and more anti-American sentiment around the world, not less. Perhaps you should travel out of the country more often.

From my perspective there is only one person among the Democratic powerful elite who had it right BEFORE Bush went to war. Senator Robert C. Byrd spoke passionately about how the Congress was neglecting its constitutional duty by giving a blank check to Bush for going to war. He said it then that Bush had not made his case and that DEMS and GOPers had not asked the necessary questions. Byrd wrote about this in a book in 2004. Byrd has said over and over, this war was wrong and uncontitutional. He specifically cites, as does former President Carter, the US Constitution does NOT provide for provisions of a "pre-emptive" war.

The Dems should be ashamed for going along with this war. However, we all know they were blackballed into this. Karl Rove was very outspoken that he and the GOP would hang the threat of terrorism on any dem or gop who would not vote for the resolution that gave Bush some authority to go after Saddam. In the end, the dems that did go along were targeted for defeat anyway as being soft on terrorism.

This Iraqi war has never been about the war of terrorism. This war has always been a political war for the GOP and their defense contractor buddies, oil companies, and others who benefit financially from the war at the expense of the blood of the American people. This is the most amoral war since the days of the crusades by the Romans. Shame on everyone who voted for it.

Having said that, there is only three people besides Byrd who I respect on this issue. John Edwards for saying he made a mistake. John Murtha for saying what all AMericans know which is its time to start getting out of this mess and John Wilson (Plames husband) who outed the Bush administration on its false claims of Nigerian uranium. I know there are others that have spoken out such as Dennis Kuncinich, Wesley Clark, and Powells former aide. But I am not impressed with Pelosi's johnny come lately announcement. Too little to late.

Why not Obama? Because if 6 years in the Senate wasn't enough experience to prepare John Edwards for the presidency, and people saw him as presumptuous for running with so little experience, how would Obama with just 4 years in the Senate overcome that?

I'm a fellow Obama-lover, though he is definitely not the progressive messiah some seem to think he is. And granted, he is unique and has a greater personal story than Edwards, including previous service in the state legislature Edwards didn't have. I think Obama's age would make him older than Clinton, Kennedy, and T. Roosevelt when they became president, but I don't see him getting very far with only 4 years of federal experience.

And as I've said repeatedly on this site, senators don't get elected president. Obama might be better positioned for a presidential bid if, when he's up for election next and Gov. Blagojevich is term-limited in 2010, he ran for Govenor of Illinois.

"The very idea that our country would choose to surrender in Iraq only makes sense for the selfish individualblahblahblah"

A) So are you implying that MILITARILY "U.S. Victory" is the only option? B/c you are talking about surrender, and "U.S. Victory" would mean that THEY surrender. Right? B/c in war, there is a victor and a loser (who surrenders), or a stalemate. Now follow this if you can: a CIVILLIAN INSURGENCY is NOT AN ARMY. An Army will surrender. A civillian insurgency will not. Therefore, militarily, it is impossible to declare victory.

and

B) If our only goal is "U.S. Victory" wasn't our "Mission Accomplished" years ago? What more do we need to do to win the war outside of ACCOMPLISHING THE MISSION?

By using this right-wing nutjob "surrender" logic, we should: continue fighting and dying until a massive civilian insurgency with NO tactical military organization and a distinct presence in many locales in the country ALL SPONTANEOUSLY surrender simultaneously by some mystical psychic connection... AND, that we wont stop fighting and dying until we achieve victory in a war with no mission.

Well well, I guess Hanoi Jane must be "out of sorts", so Nancy Pelosi is going to take her place. Next we will see pictures
of Nancy rigging an IED!!! Or perhaps
she will volunteer to work with Sadam's
defense team!
In any case, we have a new turncoat - "NANCY THE NUT"!!!

All I can say is WOW! Have any of the posters above left the beltway in the last 20 years? The very idea that our country would choose to surrender in Iraq only makes sense for the selfish individual who wants more for him or herself right now. Don't tell me that you are thinking of future generations with ideas like that. Why do we have a precariously dangerous nuclear capable communist regime in North Korea today? It is not because Congress and the President stood behind the troops during the Korean war after years of wacky press correspondents raging an all out media campaign to discredit the very country that gave them their freedoms. We tied their hands with silly rules of engagement,selfishly thought more of ourselves than the future of the world or country and then surrendered in defeat to allow the aggressor the spoils of their conquest.

In the most simple form mankind has shown throughout history that any reward to the aggressor always leads to some form of captivity of the peaceful.

Is there an honest reporter left, who really believes that we are an occupying army in Iraq and not liberators! Why do you attach labels that describe our country as bad and a failure when neither is true.

The terrorists setting roadside bombs and enlisting suicidal car bombers are just that: Terrorists! NOT insurgents! Giving credibility to the enemy who blows up women and children indiscriminately is represhensible.

I will give you all credit for getting one thing right. You are right that our country needs some change. We need to think less about me and more about us and them. The childish me generation must wake up and do something that improves the whole of America and not just my little world.

The first two posters , Jim and Dave, are onto something about the Dems lack of oversight in the faux "War" vote. But recall how the timing of that vote was jimmied, but the vote at the UN (should have been voteS), did not have looming elections in the foreground.

The idea that they (some Dems) voted for war needs to get fleshed out. There was no declaration of war on Iraq. It shames us and makes us unworthy of our constitution, for that also the Dems are weakened.

Lastly, there is one Dem who voted against the non-war vote war, the Patriot Act and who much earlier said being in Iraq makes us less secure, not more. Russ Feingold. Cant wait until I can vote for him again, hopefully for nominee and then for Pres.

I actually wrote this in relation to the article that Ann Applebaum wrote this morning on the washington post about bob woodward and anonymous sources.

It actually pains me to write this. I have been a fan of the washington post and a fan of your column for a very long time. I wrote the article below entitled "From deep throat to cohort: the Devolution of the American Press" as a result of what transpired with the bob woodward debacle and the continuing willful lies that he and by extension the post perpetrates by not covering what is easily the biggest story since Watergate. And by that I mean woodward and other journalists who have become cohorts of the very subject they are supposed to be keeping in check. Instead of shinning a light on a fabricated and fictitious reason to war, journalists were the main advocators of war, and I'm not only talking about woodward and judy miller.
You do not add any value when you distort the topic at hand. No one questioned the value of anonymous sources. Afterall, those in power are only restrained by the possibility that their action, if judged to be irrational or exuberant, will be exposed. And those that can expose these abuses are mostly those who work with them or under them. Hence anonymous sources are not only valuable to the press, they are indispensable to freedom and democracy; for with their vigilance they keep in check the excesses of power. So in this point we concur that journalists have a duty if not an obligation to keep the promise of secrecy to the people they are getting their information from in the context of exposing a false or pernicous attempt by those who are in position of power.

To take this argument and turn it on its head is sickening. The unseemly part of anonymous sourcing is not when you use a low level beaurocrat or a mid level military person et al who is exposing a potential lie or abuse, its when you willingly get in the bed of the policy makers themselves and then use them as an anonymous source. One does not have to go too far to see how judy miller protected I. Libby by quoting him as a former hill staffer. This is insidious to say the least, instead of using anonymous sources to expose a fraud or uncover a deception, she instead blessed the very offender with the clock of anonymity and further echoed his agenda.

In not all cases are things black and white, but the duty of a journalist is to dig deeper. If you know that the anonymous source is the policy maker or the person/persons who advocate a policy, does it not make sense to question their validity? Are you a stenographer or a journalist? This is the crux of the matter. As you quoted in your article, "in Jordan there are no anonymous sources with whom members of the press are entangled, no lower-level officials who can help shed light on events--as a result, its hard for the press to be relevant to politics". I would counter that it is equally burdensome if not more so for the press to be relevant when the very anonymous sources are the same people who are shaping public policy. Is it the job of the press to be guard dogs of the public or a poodle yelping at the behest of power?

I just want to know. At what point do you plan on covering this woodward debacle further. Are you really going to sit on this and hope it goes away? I know there are honorable people at the post who are enraged by his actions, how long are you going to keep quiet? Do you really think it's honorable to say nothing? Some have gone on talk shows such as Meet the Press and, though have tried to veil the anger, at least spoke to the matter. Please speak up, it is not my desire to subject the post to the periphery of relevancy, but as with all things, history will judge you not for your actions at the time but through the prism of hindsight. Please keep this in mind as you continue to disregard the 800 pound gorilla in your newsroom.

Senator Murtha never called for immediate troup withdrawal nor did he suggest that we cut and run. Bush is trying to create a strawman and knock him down. There is no doubt that Murtha's suggestion is the ONLY lasting solution both for the US and Iraq. The longer we wait to follow Murtha's idea the worse things are going to turn out. So, Pelosi did the right thing and one can only hope that many more Democrats wake up sooner than later.

I don't expect this announcement to have a lot of traction for Democrats. Speaking as a Democrat, I think Pelosi has been ineffective as minority leader. She's not shown much ability to get House Democrats to follow her lead, and I expect this issue will be much the same.

Sen. Lieberman did what any candidate would do, he read the polls and wrote an article that has no downside to it. He's a perfect example of what's wrong with politician's generally.
The President has put forth a series of noble but formless goals which don't accomplish anything. The Iraqi army has acquired how many M1A1 tanks from the US? How many M1114 ? Or do we let them keep riding the stakebed trucks with no protection? And how do we get them to not use these units for revenge on the Sunnis? Sorry, but this is not a plan, it's a prayer.

Pelosi joining Murtha is just the beginning. Things will snowball and the withdrawal will escalate. Bush simply drew the same line in the sand as he always does today, offering little substantive discussion of the Iraq issue. The Democrats are slowly beginning to realize that Bush has exhausted his bag of tricks for arguing for Iraq, so his stubborness today is only going to lead to more trouble for him in the foreseeable future.
I wonder if Pelosi agrees with General Odom's position on the war, as that is what Murtha seems to have adopted as well. Here is a link for Lt. General William Odom's article about the necessity of withdrawal from Iraq:http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

The USA is on top of the list of nations that love war. We are no. 1 in making war, something like 20 or so wars, we like it when the "enemy" is non-white, and we love it when "they" have a different religion. 50 % of Americans are totally ignorant of the world they live in. I am a Democrat but I'm not voting for anyone who has blood on their hands. Hillary is a joke, I'm for Gore.

I can only say one thing - Barack Obama. Not Hilary, not Joe Biden, not Gore again, PLEASE. Even though Sen. Obama is young, he is The Real Thing. Our dreams of a real "West Wing" president might come true in this young, strong and eloquent idealist. Yes, Obama in 2012, but why NOT 2008??

As a "progressive" Democrat who was against the war from the start I have to agree with Jim's assessment ... my political party has continued to show a lack of leadership regarding the war ... they should have been screaming when Bush initiated a non-provoked war when the resolution of the Congress regarding Executive action to commence an attack was directly related to the potential United Nations determination re: WMD's that we know just didn't exist.

The war is a mess and even Sens. Clinton and Biden (if they are leaders in more than title) need to assert the blatant failure of the Bush Administration to fully share information even with the Congress while they continue to support the non-immediate withdrawal of troops.

We are in a mess and the Democrats need to make sure all the blame for the war goes to Bush rather than getting caught up in any responsibility for the tragic results of a war that counters the United States' historical honorable role amongst nations.

Which is the party of basic human morality? Certainly not the war creating, torture supporting, and misleading group that now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Democrats need to claim the moral high ground that was once ours in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. We only need look to our Sunday School teaching and church attending recent Presidents.

A lot of Democrats are trying to avoid appologizing for their Iraq votes by claiming the administration mislead them. I don't accept this. I believe that the Bush administration used misleading and unsubstantiated statements to lead the public and that the public, by and large, bought into the invasion. Unfortunately, I believe that in the face of strong public support, the Democrats were unwilling to question any of the Bush case for war. Some, I am sure, were both diligent in reviewing the evidence and made the same mistakes as the Bush crowd. However, I believe that more of them were too chicken to check the evidence and are now simply trying to avoid blame.